Is this true, the name Nauvoo?

[_CaliforniaKid]

If the Precis (which I cited and quoted from in 1985) and other books are so valuable, I would certainly like to see what Chandler or anyone else could have culled from them that would have given Joseph a leg up in providing his correct identifications.

Well, you're still missing the point. We have a newspaper article from before Chandler even arrived in Kirtland which says that Chandler was telling visitors to his exhibit that scholars back East had identified a portion of the papyrus as "epitaphs" of the mummies. Then we find Joseph Smith using the exact same word in his own interpretations. Coincidence? I think not. We also have Oliver Cowdery explicitly saying that the identification of Facsimile 2 as an "astronomical" document came from Chandler. It doesn't take a highly competent Egyptologist to make these sorts of identifications. Just someone with a passable amateur interest. Anthon could fit the bill, and I suspect there were other classicists in the United States who knew enough to make such generalizations as well. Equipped with the general knowledge that Facsimile 2 is an astronomical representation, Joseph could then make some lucky guesses (while still getting the bulk of it wrong).

[_Fence Sitter]

I'd like Fence Sitter to show us a GAEL (or an equivalent to the KEP) for the Book of Mormon if he is seriously going to float the balloon that this is the means by which Joseph Smith translated.

From M Marquardt The Rise of Mormonism. Pg 404

The Egyptian Alphabet and related papers are preserved manuscript texts that show how Joseph Smith produced ideas prior to and in connection with the Book of Abraham.
In his work of the Book of Mormon, before Joseph Smith commenced to dictate, he reportedly transcribed an Egyptian Alphabet from the record of the Book of Mormon. Luck Mack Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother, described the importance of her son copying characters of an alphabet to show the learned.

“It soon became necessary to take some measures to accomplish the translation of the record into English but he [Joseph Smith] was instructed to take off a fac simile of the characters<composing the alphabet which were called reformed Egyptian> Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for a translation of the same.”

Lucy continued her narrative concerning the Egyptian alphabet:

“Joseph started [in] Dec[ember]. for Penn[sylvania] it was agreed that Martin Har[r]is should follow him as soon as he <Joseph> should have suffivient time to transcribe the Egyptian alphabet which Mr. Harris was to take to the east…”

From pg 405

That the characters were to be from an alphabet was clear when Lucy Smith addressed the church conference in October 1845. Lucy said that she had benn called “upon by Joseph to go and tell Martin Harris & family that he [Joseph] had got the Plates and he wanted him [Martin] to take an a[l]phabet of the Characters and carry them to the learned men to decipher[decipher].

Professor Anthon wrote about the sheet of paper which contained the characters of Smith’s alphabet.

“The baber was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets.”

and more from Anthon.

“The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetic characters, and had in my opinion no meaning at all connected with them”

[_Tobin]

Fence Sitter,

Again, I challenge you to produce a copy of a GAEL and KEP for the Book of Mormon. Senselessly copying quotes about Joseph Smith writing down some of the Egyptian characters is nonsense. We already know he did that and supplied an example to Professor Anthon. It is time to put up or shut up. Either provide a link to demonstrate the Book of Mormon alphabet and English translations or admit you have zero evidence. Pointless quotes about Joseph Smith copying down some of the characters doesn't pass the laugh test. Also, I would like you to provide any accounts of him using such an alphabet, a corresponding grammar and vocabulary in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Of course, I don't think you'll ever be able to produce anything even remotely close and will instead just mindlessly quote mine as you flail around.

[_Fence Sitter]

Fence Sitter,

Again, I challenge you to produce a copy of a GAEL and KEP for the Book of Mormon.

Can you produce a copy of a pre-existing manuscript (Ab0) to the Book of Abraham?
Can you produce a copy of the plates themselves?
Can you produce a copy of the missing portions of the Hor scroll?
Can you produce a copy of the missing portion of the scroll of Ta-Sheriit-Min?
Can you produce a copy of the 3 or 8 witness statements to the Book of Mormon?



Until then I suppose we will have to let contemporary witnesses provide what evidence there is for all these purported documents.

[_Tobin]

Fence Sitter,

Again, I challenge you to produce a copy of a GAEL and KEP for the Book of Mormon.

Can you produce a copy of a pre-existing manuscript (Ab0) to the Book of Abraham?
Can you produce a copy of the plates themselves?
Can you produce a copy of the missing portions of the Hor scroll?
Can you produce a copy of the missing portion of the scroll of Ta-Sheriit-Min?
Can you produce a copy of the 3 or 8 witness statements to the Book of Mormon?



Until then I suppose we will have to let contemporary witnesses provide what evidence there is for all these purported documents.

I see. So basically you are abandoning your ridiculous position then? Since you have no evidence nor accounts what-so-ever, that would be wise. I've never seen a Mormon critic offer the theory that Joseph Smith translated the plates via conventional means because most believe they never existed in the first place. It would seem odd that you would concede that they existed and would then try to offer such a fanciful theory based on nothing more than a few quotes about Joseph Smith copying down some of the characters.

However, I really suspect you are just quote mining meaningless references in the attempt to be argumentative. You really have not revealed anything interesting here at all (outside of what was already known). Anyway, so be it. If engaging in flights of fancy is all you intend, have fun. I see no reason anyone should take you seriously though.

[_Robert F Smith]

If the Precis (which I cited and quoted from in 1985) and other books are so valuable, I would certainly like to see what Chandler or anyone else could have culled from them that would have given Joseph a leg up in providing his correct identifications.

Well, you're still missing the point. We have a newspaper article from before Chandler even arrived in Kirtland which says that Chandler was telling visitors to his exhibit that scholars back East had identified a portion of the papyrus as "epitaphs" of the mummies. Then we find Joseph Smith using the exact same word in his own interpretations. Coincidence? I think not. We also have Oliver Cowdery explicitly saying that the identification of Facsimile 2 as an "astronomical" document came from Chandler. It doesn't take a highly competent Egyptologist to make these sorts of identifications. Just someone with a passable amateur interest. Anthon could fit the bill, and I suspect there were other classicists in the United States who knew enough to make such generalizations as well. Equipped with the general knowledge that Facsimile 2 is an astronomical representation, Joseph could then make some lucky guesses (while still getting the bulk of it wrong).

As I indicated, Chris, I am not much impressed with "lucky guesses" based on "generalizations" made by those with "a passable amateur interest," which would include Anthon and any other contemporary scholars. That someone speculated on the papyri being epitaphs for the mummies, or that the hypocephalus was astronomical, just doesn't get us to a substantive test of Joseph's descriptive claims -- the bulk of which he got right, which would be impossible given the state of knowledge of Egyptology at that time.
I was under the impression that you took a detailed look at such claims as compared to actual Egyptology. Perhaps you'd care to supply us with some specifics.
Bob

[_CaliforniaKid]

As I indicated, Chris, I am not much impressed with "lucky guesses" based on "generalizations" made by those with "a passable amateur interest," ...

I'm not much impressed with his lucky guesses either. ;)

I was under the impression that you took a detailed look at such claims as compared to actual Egyptology. Perhaps you'd care to supply us with some specifics.

Which claims? Joseph's, or Chandler's?

I know basically what has been published in the critical/apologetic literature on the Book of Abraham, and not much beyond that. Egyptology is outside my area of interest/specialization, and I haven't seen anything to convince me that delving deeper into Egyptology would particularly enhance my understanding of the Book of Abraham. It makes for an interesting comparison, I guess, but as far as the historicity question is concerned, I don't see much point in continuing the inquiry. We have a smoking gun and a glove that fits; about the only thing missing is a signed confession. If you want to overturn this verdict on appeal, you're gonna have to do a lot better than compass points and the sons of Horus.

[_Robert F Smith]

As I indicated, Chris, I am not much impressed with "lucky guesses" based on "generalizations" made by those with "a passable amateur interest," ...

I'm not much impressed with his lucky guesses either. ;)

I was under the impression that you took a detailed look at such claims as compared to actual Egyptology. Perhaps you'd care to supply us with some specifics.

Which claims? Joseph's, or Chandler's?

I was thinking primarily of your claim that, despite "some lucky guesses" by Joseph, he got "the bulk of it wrong." I thought that in your sustained and detailed look at the claims made (not suggesting original Egyptological research by you), you might have found some examples which would support the claims you have made. In other words, for what substantive reasons did you reach your conclusion that he got "the bulk of it wrong"? I know of no research which supports that conclusion. When I confronted Klaus Baer on this in public, he was not able to respond.

I know basically what has been published in the critical/apologetic literature on the Book of Abraham, and not much beyond that. Egyptology is outside my area of interest/specialization, and I haven't seen anything to convince me that delving deeper into Egyptology would particularly enhance my understanding of the Book of Abraham. It makes for an interesting comparison, I guess, but as far as the historicity question is concerned, I don't see much point in continuing the inquiry. We have a smoking gun and a glove that fits; about the only thing missing is a signed confession. If you want to overturn this verdict on appeal, you're gonna have to do a lot better than compass points and the sons of Horus.

Aside from a "smoking gun" being a fundamental historical fallacy, I still don't see the evidence which would convict Joseph. Lynch law, maybe, but little else.

[Guest]

I was thinking primarily of your claim that, despite "some lucky guesses" by Joseph, he got "the bulk of it wrong." I thought that in your sustained and detailed look at the claims made (not suggesting original Egyptological research by you), you might have found some examples which would support the claims you have made. In other words, for what substantive reasons did you reach your conclusion that he got "the bulk of it wrong"? I know of no research which supports that conclusion.

Try Robert K. Ritner's "Complete Edition" of the papyri. The section on Facsimile 2 begins on page 215. Among other thing, Ritner notes that the Facsimile is incorrectly restored, that the "outlandish" names in the explanation are not Egyptian, that Smith misidentified most of the figures, and that the apologetic defenses of Smith's explanation are largely fallacious. I can see how one might argue that some of Smith's explanations were close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but I'm honestly bewildered by your denial that he got the bulk of it wrong. Take a step back from the apologetic literature for a moment and look at the explanation through an outsider's eyes, Robert. I think perhaps you've been so immersed in the parallels for so long that you've lost sight of the extent and gravity of the un-parallels.

[_Franktalk]

Joseph Smith is the rock the Mormon church is built upon.

Now that is funny. I always thought it was God.